ETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2 April 2026 has been entered.
There are still grounds for Claim objections in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the35 USC 112(b) rejections. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 2 April 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 2 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 19 of claim 1 and line 16 of claim 20, recommend reciting: “a workpiece surface plane.”
In claim 4, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the keyhole.”
In claim 20, recommend amending lines 12-13 to recite: “the workpiece.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-6, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP-2004154813-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Imai et al. (US-20130215914-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuoka teaches a method for welding a workpiece (fig. 2 “welding the workpiece 6,” page 13), the method comprising:
irradiating a surface of the workpiece (top surface of workpiece 6, fig. 2) using a first laser beam (beam 13, fig. 2) having a first laser power L1 (“10 kW,” page 10) and a first beam width B1 (“the diameter of the first laser beam on the workpiece surface is 100 μm or more and 5 mm or less,” page 6) to produce a keyhole (keyhole 62, fig. 2), and using a second laser beam (beam 23, fig. 2) having a second laser power L2 (“beam 23 has sufficient power density,” page 11) and a second beam width B2 (“1/2 or less of the diameter of the spot 14,” page 11) to increase a welding penetration depth of the keyhole (“the keyhole is effectively grown in depth because, in addition to multiple reflections within the first beam component inside the keyhole, the energy (power) of the second beam with a deep depth of focus is directly injected into the keyhole.,” page 7; fig. 2 shows how beam 23 increase the penetration depth of the keyhole 62);
wherein L1 is at least 1 kW (“10 kW,” page 10);
wherein B2 < B1 (B2 is less than half of B1, page 11);
wherein the second laser beam (beam 23, fig. 2) is directed into an opening of the keyhole in the workpiece produced by the first laser beam (opening of the keyhole 62 caused by beam 13, fig. 2), and
wherein a beam parameter product (BPP) of the first laser beam (BPP1) (the Specification describes the calculation for BPP on page 12, lines 1-3 as the radius times the angle; BPP1 is construed as half the diameter of beam 13 times the angle of beam 13) is greater than a beam parameter product of the second laser beam (BPP2) (BPP2 is construed as half the diameter of beam 23 times the angle of beam 23; because the diameter of the beams are approximately the same in fig. 2 at the waist and because beam 13 has a lager divergence angle than beam 23, the BPP of beam 13 is construed as being greater than the BPP of beam 23; “laser beam 13 is spread across the entire inner surface of the keyhole…. in contrast, the laser beam 23 has a cylindrical, highpower-density region in the center of the keyhole 62,” page 13; construed such beam 13 by design has a larger divergence angle than beam 23, as shown in fig. 2);
wherein the second laser beam passes through the opening of the keyhole to emit its energy within the keyhole and not on the workpiece surface plane (“the laser beam 23 has a cylindrical, highpower-density region in the center of the keyhole 62,” page 13; beam 23 emits energy into the keyhole 62, fig. 2), wherein absorptions and reflections (“reflections,” page 11) of the second laser beam occur at a distance below the workpiece surface (beam 23 is absorbed into keyhole 62 at a distance below the surface of the workpiece 6, fig. 2).
Matsuoka, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
440
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose guiding the first and second laser beams in a multicore fiber having at least one core fiber and a ring fiber, wherein the first laser beam is guided in the ring fiber and the second laser beam is guided in the core fiber, and the first and second laser beams exit from a fiber end of the multicore fiber before the workpiece and directing the first and second laser beams to the workpiece with both a collimation lens and a focusing lens.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Imai teaches guiding the first (beam 4b, fig. 1) and second laser beams (beam 4a, fig. 1) in a multicore fiber (fiber 22, fig. 1; fiber 22 has a core layer 22a and cladding layers 22b and 22c, fig. 4) having at least one core fiber (core layer 22a, fig. 4) and a ring fiber (cladding layer 22b, fig. 4), wherein the first laser beam is guided in the ring fiber (beam 4b, fig. 4) and the second laser beam is guided in the core fiber (beam 4a, fig. 4), and the first and second laser beams exit from a fiber end of the multicore fiber (output end 3, fig. 1) before the workpiece and directing the first and second laser beams to the workpiece with both a collimation lens (collimating lens 5, fig. 1) and a focusing lens (condenser lens 6, fig. 1).
Imai, figs. 1 and 4
PNG
media_image2.png
826
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
358
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Imai, by using the materials processing apparatus, as taught by Imai, to produce the two welding beams, as taught by Matsuoka, such that the two beams 4b and 4a, as taught by Imai, were the beams 13 and 23, respectively, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to use an apparatus that reduces the amount of spattering as a result of using a double-clad fiber that uses an outside beam that acts like a skirt to preheat the periphery of the weld (Imai, paras 0012-0014 and 0077; Imai teaches “4 kW” for L1 and “2 kW” for L2, paras 0067 and 0103).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuoka teaches wherein the first laser beam and the second laser beam have a same focal position (the focal points are located at the same depth where the beams converge and then diverge after the focal points, annotated in fig. 2 below) or have focal positions spaced apart from one another by less than 1 mm in a direction perpendicular to the workpiece surface plane (not explicitly disclosed).
Matsuoka, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
440
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Matsuoka teaches wherein the method is used to produce a keyhole in the workpiece (keyhole 62, fig. 2), and wherein focal positions of the first and second laser beams are located in the workpiece surface plane (not explicitly disclosed) or below the workpiece surface inside a keyhole (the focal points are below the top surface of workpeice 6, annotated in fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuoka teaches wherein B2 ≤ 0.75 * B1 (B2 is less than half of B1, page 11).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuoka teaches wherein B2 ≤ 0.5 * B1 (B2 is less than half of B1, page 11).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly dislose exactly wherein the first laser beam has a first focus diameter of about 300 microns to about 440 microns, and the second laser beam has a second focus diameter of about 110 microns to about 150 microns.
However, Matsuoka teaches wherein the first laser beam has a first focus diameter of about 300 microns to about 440 microns (“the diameter of the first laser beam on the workpiece surface is 100 μm or more and 5 mm or less,” page 6; construed as a range of 100-5,000 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range), and the second laser beam has a second focus diameter of about 110 microns to about 150 microns (“1/2 or less of the diameter of the spot 14,” page 11; construed as a range of 50-2,500 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, such that instead of a range of 100-5,000 microns for beam 13, as taught by Matsuoka, a range of 300-440 microns was used, and instead of a range of 500-2,500 microns for beam 23, as taught by Matsuoka, a range of 110-150 microns was used, as claimed, because the diameter of the beam is a results-effective variable that should be dependent on the desired energy distribution for the beams, such that the power density is maintained at approximately 100 kW/cm2, as required for welding (Matsuoka, pages 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuoka teaches further comprising aligning the first laser beam and the second laser beam coaxially (“coaxially,” page 8) to have a common beam axis (annotated in fig. 2 below).
Matsuoka, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
440
541
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Matsuoka teaches wherein the common beam axis extends substantially perpendicularly to the workpiece surface (in the annotated fig. 2, the axis is perpendicular to the top surface of the workpiece 6).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Matsuoka in view of Imai as set forth above regarding claim 2 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Imai teaches further comprising generating the first laser beam (beam 4b, fig. 2) with a first laser source (semiconductor laser sources 28, fig. 2), and generating the second laser beam (beam 4a, fig. 2) with a second laser source (pumping light sources 26, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Matsuoka teaches a laser welding device (fig. 1) for welding a workpiece (fig. 2; “welding the workpiece 6,” page 13), comprising:
one or more laser sources (sources 11 and 21, fig. 1) that generate a first laser beam (beam 13, fig. 2) having a first laser power L1 (“10 kW,” page 10) and a first beam width B1 (“the diameter of the first laser beam on the workpiece surface is 100 μm or more and 5 mm or less,” page 6) and a second laser beam (beam 23, fig. 2) having a second laser power L2 (“beam 23 has sufficient power density,” page 11) and a second beam width B2 (“1/2 or less of the diameter of the spot 14,” page 11),
wherein L1 is at least 1 kW (“10 kW,” page 10),
B1 is greater than B2 (B2 is less than half of B1, page 11), and
a beam parameter product (BPP) of the first laser beam (BPP1) (the Specification describes the calculation for BPP on page 12, lines 1-3 as the radius times the angle; BPP1 is construed as half the diameter of beam 13 times the angle of beam 13) is greater than a beam parameter product of the second laser beam (BPP2) (BPP2 is construed as half the diameter of beam 23 times the angle of beam 23; because the diameter of the beams are approximately the same in fig. 2 at the waist and because beam 13 has a lager divergence angle than beam 23, the BPP of beam 13 is construed as being greater than the BPP of beam 23; “laser beam 13 is spread across the entire inner surface of the keyhole…. in contrast, the laser beam 23 has a cylindrical, highpower-density region in the center of the keyhole 62,” page 13; construed such beam 13 by design has a larger divergence angle than beam 23, as shown in fig. 2);
wherein the second laser beam (beam 23, fig. 2) is directed into an opening of a keyhole in the workpiece surface plane produced by the first laser beam (opening of the keyhole 62 caused by beam 13, fig. 2), to emit the second laser beam's energy within the keyhole and not on a surface plane of the workpiece (“the laser beam 23 has a cylindrical, highpower-density region in the center of the keyhole 62,” page 13; beam 23 emits energy into the keyhole 62, fig. 2), wherein absorptions and reflections (“reflections,” page 11) of the second laser beam occur at a distance below the workpiece surface (beam 23 is absorbed into keyhole 62 at a distance below the surface of the workpiece 6, fig. 2).
Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose a multicore fiber having at least one core fiber and a ring fiber, wherein the first laser beam is guided in the ring fiber and the second laser beam is guided in the core fiber, and wherein the first and second laser beams exit from a fiber end of the multicore fiber before a workpiece; and a collimation lens and a focusing lens arranged to direct the first laser beam onto the workpiece and the second laser beam into the workpiece.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Imai teaches a multicore fiber (fiber 22, fig. 1; fiber 22 has a core layer 22a and cladding layers 22b and 22c, fig. 4) having at least one core fiber (core layer 22a, fig. 4) and a ring fiber (cladding layer 22b, fig. 4), wherein the first laser beam is guided in the ring fiber (beam 4b, fig. 4) and the second laser beam is guided in the core fiber (beam 4a, fig. 4), and wherein the first and second laser beams exit from a fiber end of the multicore fiber (output end 3, fig. 1) before a workpiece; and a collimation lens (collimating lens 5, fig. 1) and a focusing lens (condenser lens 6, fig. 1) arranged to direct the first laser beam onto the workpiece and the second laser beam into the workpiece (as shown in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Imai, by using the materials processing apparatus, as taught by Imai, to produce the two welding beams, as taught by Matsuoka, such that the two beams 4b and 4a, as taught by Imai, were the beams 13 and 23, respectively, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to use an apparatus that reduces the amount of spattering as a result of using a double-clad fiber that uses an outside beam that acts like a skirt to preheat the periphery of the weld (Imai, paras 0012-0014 and 0077; Imai teaches “4 kW” for L1 and “2 kW” for L2, paras 0067 and 0103).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP-2004154813-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Imai et al. (US-20130215914-A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Tsubota et al. (JP-2006263771-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein BPP1≥ 2*BPP2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Tsubota teaches wherein BPP1≥ 2*BPP2 (the Specification describes the calculation for BPP on page 12, lines 1-3 as the radius times the divergence angle; the beams in Matsuoka and in Tsubota have approximately the width at the waist of the beams; θ0 is construed as being the divergence angle for BPP2 and θ3 is construed as being the divergence angle for BPP1; based on fig. 6, θ3 is approximately twice the divergence angle of θ0).
Tsubota, fig. 6
PNG
media_image6.png
520
306
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Tsubota, by using divergence angles θ0 and θ3, as taught by Tsubota, for beams 23 and 13, respectively, as taught by Matsuoka, because the divergence angle is a results-effective variable that can be used to adjust the shape of the keyhole, and it would have been obvious to try a divergence angle for the outside beam that was twice as much as the inside beam, for the advantage of optimizing the shape of the keyhole such that the keyhole is stably maintained, preventing the occurrence of porosity in the weld (Tsubota, paras 0006, 0016, 0019, 0046, and 0049) .
Regarding claim 8, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein BPP1≥ 4*BPP2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Tsubota teaches wherein BPP1≥ 4*BPP2 (the Specification describes the calculation for BPP on page 12, lines 1-3 as the radius times the divergence angle; the beams in Matsuoka and in Tsubota have approximately the width at the waist of the beams; θ0 is construed as being the divergence angle for BPP2 and θ1 is construed as being the divergence angle for BPP1; based on fig. 6, θ1 is approximately four times the divergence angle of θ0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Tsubota, by using divergence angles θ0 and θ3, as taught by Tsubota, for beams 23 and 13, respectively, as taught by Matsuoka, because the divergence angle is a results-effective variable that can be used to adjust the shape of the keyhole, and it would have been obvious to try a divergence angle for the outside beam that was four times as much as the inside beam, for the advantage of optimizing the shape of the keyhole such that the keyhole is stably maintained, preventing the occurrence of porosity in the weld (Tsubota, paras 0006, 0016, 0019, 0046, and 0049) .
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP-2004154813-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Imai et al. (US-20130215914-A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Xiao et al. (WO-0000320-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein L1 is less than or equal to L2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Xiao teaches wherein L1 is less than or equal to L2 (“the dual beam 2x3000W,” page 24; construed such that both L1 and L2 are 3 kW).
Xiao, fig. 6
PNG
media_image7.png
496
692
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Xiao, by using a dual beam configuration of 3000W each, as taught by Xiao, for beams 13 and 23, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to use beams with high laser power of 3000 Watts, because the power is a results-effective variable in relation to the welding speed, for the advantage of using a dual-beam configuration with high power that obtains high production as a result of using faster welding speeds while still achieving high quality, improved efficiency, and flexibility (Xiao, pages 3 and 24; pages 23-24 explain how higher power enables faster welding speeds; equation 3.6 shows that the power PF is directly proportional to the welding speed v).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein L2≥2*L1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Xiao teaches wherein L2 (Table 1 on page 3 for shows that power for a CO2 laser is 5000-6000 W) ≥2*L1 (“300 to 3000W” for a ND: YAG-laser, page 14; equation is satisfied when the emitted power is between 300-2500 W).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Xiao, by using a dual beam configuration that emits power at 5000-6000 W and 300-3000 W, as taught by Xiao, for beams 23 and 13, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to use a laser beam for beam 23 with a much higher energy than a laser beam for beam 13, such that a high-power beam 23 is used to form molten material to create a keyhole, while a much low-power beam 13 is used to control the shape of the periphery of the keyhole melted by beam 23, for the advantage of maintaining the keyhole in a stable state during the welding and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein L1 is greater than L2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Xiao teaches wherein L1 (Table 5, “3000W” in second row) is greater than L2 (Table 5, “2500W” in second row).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Xiao, by using a dual beam configuration of 2500 W and 3000 W, as taught by Xiao, for beams 23 and 13, as taught by Tsubota, in order to use a beam 13 with high laser power, because the power is a results-effective variable in relation to the welding speed, for the advantage of using an outside beam with high power that obtains high production as a result of using faster welding speeds while still achieving high quality, improved efficiency, and flexibility (Xiao, pages 3 and 24; pages 23-24 explain how higher power enables faster welding speeds; equation 3.6 shows that the power PF is directly proportional to the welding speed v).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a welding speed feed rate is from 1 to 10 meters per minute.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Xiao teaches wherein a welding speed feed rate is from 1 to 10 meters per minute (“5.4 m/min,” page 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Xiao, by using a welding speed of 5.4 m/min, as taught by Xiao, for beams 23 and 13, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to use beams that travel at 5.4 m/min, because the welding speed is a results-effective variable in relation to the power, for the advantage of using a dual-beam configuration with high power that obtains high production as a result of using faster welding speeds while still achieving high quality, improved efficiency, and flexibility (Xiao, pages 3 and 24; pages 23-24 explain how higher power enables faster welding speeds; equation 3.6 shows that the power PF is directly proportional to the welding speed v).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP-2004154813-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Imai et al. (US-20130215914-A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Sprangle et al. (US-7970040-B1).
Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein L1 and L2 are each 2.5 kW.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Sprangle teaches wherein L1 and L2 are each 2.5 kW (“2.5 kW/fiber,” column 5, line 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Sprangle, by producing 2.5 kW, as taught by Sprangle, for beams 23 and 13, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to use beams with high power and good optical beam quality because the power is a results-effective variable in relation to the welding speed, where high power allows for high production as a result of using faster welding speeds, for the advantages of improved efficiency and flexibility (Xiao, pages 23-24 explain how higher power enables faster welding speeds; equation 3.6 shows that the power PF is directly proportional to the welding speed v; Sprangle, column 1, lines 35-58) .
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP-2004154813-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Imai et al. (US-20130215914-A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Huber et al. (US-20150293306-A1).
Matsuoka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising generating an original laser beam from a common laser source, coupling a first part of the original laser beam into the ring fiber to form the first laser beam, and coupling a second part of the original laser beam into the core fiber to form the second laser beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Huber teaches further comprising generating an original laser beam (beam 2, fig. 3) from a common laser source (“just one laser beam source,” para 0007), coupling a first part (beam 2b, fig. 3; para 0047) of the original laser beam into the ring fiber (outer ring core 6, fig. 3) to form the first laser beam (beam 2b, fig. 3), and coupling a second part (beam 2a, fig. 3; para 0047) of the original laser beam into the core fiber (fibre core 4, fig. 3) to form the second laser beam (beam 2a, fig. 3).
Huber, fig. 3
PNG
media_image8.png
426
636
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuoka, in view of the teachings of Huber, by using a beam 2 from a single laser beam source that was directed onto the multi-clad fibre 1, as taught by Huber, where the beams 2a and 2b, as taught by Huber, corresponded with the beams 23 and 13, as taught by Matsuoka, respectively, in order to create a beam profile with a division of intensity between the inner fiber core and the outer ring core such that a beam with a large angle (beam 2a, as taught by Huber) at the input produces a beam with a large divergence angle (beam 13, as taught by Matsuoka) at the output and a beam with a small angle (beam 2b, as taught by Huber) at the input produces a beam with a small divergence angle (beam 23, as taught by Matsuoka) at the output (Huber, paras 0047-0048).
Response to Argument
Applicant' s arguments filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Matsuoka combined with Imai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe et al (US-9500781-B2) teach a dual beam optical system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights